PHACOVITRECTOMY VERSUS LENS-SPARING VITRECTOMY FOR RHEGMATOGENOUS RETINAL DETACHMENT REPAIR ACCORDING TO THE SURGICAL EXPERIENCE.

Abstract

To compare the efficacy and safety between lens-sparing vitrectomy and phacovitrectomy for primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment treatment according to surgical experience. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 193 patients with primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment who underwent either lens-sparing vitrectomy (n = 111) or phacovitrectomy (n = 82). Patients were operated by two experienced surgeons or eight vitreoretinal fellows and had a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Anatomical success rate, postoperative complications, and functional outcomes were compared. Primary anatomical success rate was 92.8% (103/111) for lens-sparing vitrectomy and 91.5% (75/82) for phacovitrectomy (P = 0.733). The fellows had lower success rate after phacovitrectomy compared with the experts, but not statistically significant (85% [34/40] vs. 97.6% [41/42], P = 0.054). During phacovitrectomy, one zonulysis case in the experts group and four posterior capsular rupture cases in the fellows group were noted. Cystoid macular edema was found only after phacovitrectomy (12.2% [10/82]), and epiretinal membrane occurred more after phacovitrectomy than after lens-sparing vitrectomy (28% [23/82] vs. 8.1% [9/111], P < 0.001). There was no difference in the occurrence of cystoid macular edema and epiretinal membrane after phacovitrectomy between two surgeon groups (P = 0.514, 0.701, respectively). Combined phacoemulsification and vitrectomy has no additional benefit in improving the surgical outcome of primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment management. Considering the intraoperative and postoperative complications and the relatively low success rate, phacovitrectomy may not be a desirable option in inexperienced surgeons.